Who makes the rules?

Well, the House is gonna House; DeLeo’s gonna DeLeo. Or maybe things are different this time: There really does seem to be an appetite for rules changes within the MA House, and today they vote on a package of reforms.

Among the handful of amendments that had been filed by Tuesday afternoon, two came from Representative Jonathan Hecht, a Watertown Democrat who’s seeking to make public any bill 72 hours before it’s taken up by the House and to allow lawmakers at least 30 minutes to review an amendment filed after a formal session is called.

One major change in the joint rules proposal would append a new way of lawmaking to the recent requirement barring the establishment of House-Senate conference committees in the final couple weeks before the end of formal sessions – often a period of intense legislative horse-trading a few months before the biennial election. Under the proposal, if one of the branches does not act on concurring in the appointment of a conference committee, that branch would forfeit its previous vote on legislation and concur on the action taken by the other branch.

As noted here in this exposé/jeremiad by ex-lobbyist Phil Sego, the House has been run in a completely opaque, top-down way — not merely to the public, but to its own members. The outcome of complex legislation — including shelving it entirely — happens behind closed doors, with no schedule or regular assembly-line process. This has the effect of minimizing public scrutiny and input, and empowering special interests, those who can afford lobbyists inside the building and with the ear of a very small cadre of leadership.

Who retains all the power? Said Sego:

Some years ago, representing the Massachusetts Sierra Club, I met with Speaker Robert DeLeo along with other allied groups. I had been in numerous meetings with the Speaker. This meeting was the culmination of many months of hard work by me and many other lobbyists. I told him that a coalition of groups had polled members of the House and we knew that a sizeable majority of the members supported our bill.

Whether this was true or not isn’t relevant. It’s possible that the House Speaker had no conversations with anyone about our bill. Or maybe our bill really was secretly unpopular. I’ll never know. But what I immediately came to realize was that I could have 159 of the 160 members all love a bill, but unless I had the Speaker’s “blessing” I had nothing.

The Massachusetts House of Representatives is preparing to delve into debate on Wednesday over its governing rules, with one notable caveat: It didn’t set a deadline for lawmakers to file amendments.

The change, while seemingly technical, means that any proposed changes to the chamber’s operations could emerge up until the final vote — a departure from past years that’s adding fuel to criticisms the chamber is sacrificing transparency at a time when it’s deciding the very parameters of its legislative process.

This matters for everything. It is the reason why the House kills bills that the Senate passes with wide bipartisan support. It is why fossil and utility lobbyists still dominate our energy and climate policy. It’s why we can’t get equitable school funding. It is why we can’t get a Safe Communities Act.

Are you on board? Will you have each others’ backs on this? Or will you again splinter and find your own reasons to continue a chaotic, murky, undemocratic process — with decidedly un-progressive results? A process which frustrates the public and policy stakeholders, and makes you look complicit and ineffectual?

It is said that politicians act differently when they know they’re being watched. We’re watching!

“The closest vote was the first one taken up where 23 Democrats joined with all 32 Republicans in favor of an amendment filed by Rep. Jonathan Hecht of Watertown to extend the time period to review bills before they are taken up by the House. That bid was defeated as 102 Democrats and independent Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol voted against it.”

(And no, the roll call vote is not yet available on the House website.)

I don’t understand how this is not a no-brainer. Seems to me if I’m a Rep., it would make my job easier to be guaranteed a certain amount of time to read something. What the heck is the argument against?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

21 days ago

Member

lodger

Looks like Stomv voted no. We know that he is a principled, intelligent, and honorable guy. Perhaps he has information and opinions we should hear.

My hunch on this is that members of the house are told by key leaders of the house how to vote on certain bills, so there is no real need to read the bills. This also gives these representatives an excuse when confronted by a constituent by explaining “Well you seem there was so little time to read the bill, all I could do was skim it and depend on the committee who released it. I share your outrage and will try do do what I can to make this right “

I’m only speculating based on my very limited political experience in other contexts.

If I know that:

1. A particular piece of legislation does not have the votes to pass
2. The leadership of the body has made its position clear
3. The subject of the bill doesn’t matter to my constituents
4. The bill is not so egregious that I would ever be ashamed to admit my vote.

Then I’m going to vote with the leadership, regardless of the merits, every time. Every. Time.

I commend the legislators who voted “Y” for this bill. I’m willing to give a pass to those who voted “N”. I’d REALLY like to know what the actual opinion of the legislators is or was, absent the influence of leadership.

The issue remains the same — if the price of bucking the leadership is permanent and powerful exile, then the only legislation that can ever pass is that which the leadership cannot block.

I think this is a structural issue that emerges from the rules and processes that our government follows. We have given the Speaker far too much power. That power, once given, is very hard to then take away.